Kumari Chandrasheela @ Jayshree Sethiya Vs Manoj Kumar Soni

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.11.27 11:25:45 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:57520

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 842 of 2019

¶7

Kumari Chandrasheela @ Jayshree Sethiya S/o Baisakhu Ram Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Rogadihi, P.S. Vishrampuri, Tahsil Baderajpur, District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh......................(Claimant)

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

Manoj Kumar Soni S/o Basant Soni R/o Village Sukma District- Sukma, Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Vishrampuri, P.S. Vishrampuri, Tahsil Baderajpur, District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh................(Driver)

¶11

Niranjan Soni S/o Chandulal R/o Village Bajarpara, Vishrampuri, P.S. Vishrampuri, Tahsil Baderajpur, District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh............. (Owner)

¶12

3. Branch Manager National Company, Upper Side Of Central Bank, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh..................(Insurer)

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Rudranath Mukherjee, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶16

26.11.2025

¶17

With the consent of the parties matter is heard finally.

¶18

The appellant/injured has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon in Claim Case No. 23/2018 dated

¶19

6.10.2018, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 8,54,650/- with interest at the rate of 9% per anum on account of injuries sustained by the claimant and fastened liability with driver & owner

¶20

2

¶21

of offending vehicle along with stipulation that Insurance Company shall first satisfy the award, thereafter, recover it from driver & owner.

¶22

The facts in brief are that the claimant/injured was a Tailor and earning Rs. 200/- per day. On 13.10.2016 in between 9:30 am to 10:00 am, near village Amadih, Police Station Vishrampuri, the driver of the offending vehicle Jeep bearing registration No. CG 17 T 0147 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 17 KF 2168 in which the injured/appellant was a pillion rider, resultantly, she sustained injuries over right leg and other part of body in said accident and rider of the motorcycle, namely, Pareshwar Diwan died on the spot. The claimant/injured was admitted that she was admitted in Community Health Centre, Vishrampuri, she was referred to District Hospital, Kanker, and thereafter, B.R. Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur, her right leg was amputated below the thigh, resulting in a permanent disability to the extent of 70%. The claimant/injured filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act and claimed a sum of Rs. 31,80,000/- against driver and owner of the offending vehicle/Jeep and Insurance company.

¶23

The driver and owner of the offending vehicle filed their reply and took a plea that the vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3/Insurance Company.

¶24

The Insurance Company filed reply and stated that three persons were riding on the motorcycle on the fateful date; therefore, Insurance company is not liable. Further, a plea was taken that the driver of the offending vehicle/Jeep was driving it in absence of valid driving licence, permit and fitness. The learned Tribunal framed issues; parties led evidence, and thereafter, award was passed.

¶25

Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate would argue that the age of the

¶26

3

¶27

claimant at the time of accident was 22 years and she was a Tailor by profession. He would further submit that the claimant suffered 100% disability as her right leg was amputated below thigh. He would argue that the learned Tribunal committed error of law while computing the monthly income of the claimant Rs. 4,500/- and further assessed functional disability 70%. He would argue that on other conventional heads, the learned Tribunal awarded meager amount. It is also contended that the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for loss of amenities, loss of marriage prospect and future prospect.

¶28

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents would oppose. They would submit that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation and there is no scope of interference. They would contend that the claimant could not prove her income by leading cogent evidence. The would further contended that the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶30

The claimant AW/1 in her evidence categorically stated that she was a pillion rider in a motorcycle, which was dashed by the respondent No. 1 by driving his Jeep rashly and negligently, consequently, she sustained injuries, whereas, the rider of the motorcycle, namely Pareshwar Diwan succumbed to death.

¶31

10. The learned Tribunal considered the issue with regard to contributory negligence and recorded a finding that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent and this fact is evident from site plan Ex. P/3. The learned Tribunal further placed reliance on FIR (Ex. P/1), seizure memo (Ex. P/4 and P/5), MLC (Ex. P/6) and the evidence of claimant. The Insurance

¶32

4

¶33

Company and driver & owner of the offending vehicle failed to prove the fact that there was negligence on the part of driver of the motorcycle; therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with such finding. Accordingly, contention with regard to contributory negligence raised by the Advocates appearing for respondents is hereby rejected.

¶34

11. Admittedly, there was amputation of right leg of the claimant below thigh. At the time of accident, she was aged about 22 years and she was a Tailor by profession. Thus, the learned Tribunal should have considered permanent functional disability to the extent of 100%. The learned Tribunal has not assigned any sufficient reasons to assess the functional disability of the claimant 70% when there is documentary as well as oral evidence to the effect that the claimant lost her right leg and she was no longer able to continue with her profession.

¶35

12. With regard to income, the minimum wages admissible to skilled labouer in the month of October, 2016 was Rs. 6,648/- and the learned Tribunal should have applied that figure in absence of evidence with regard to income of the claimant. On other conventional heads, the learned Tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 22,500/- for loss of earning during treatment; Rs. 22,500/- for attendant, Rs. 24,000/- for special diet; Rs. 250/- against medical bill; Rs. 5,000/- for conveyance; Rs. 1,00,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs. 6,80,400/- for loss of earning on account of disability.

¶36

13. The learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for loss of amenities, loss of marriage prospect and future prospect and the figure arrived at by the learned Tribunal with regard to income of the deceased is also at lower side, and thus, the compensation requires reconsideration and same is being revisited herein-below :-

¶37

Sr. Heads Compensation Compensation

¶38

5

¶39

No.		awarded by Tribunal	awarded by this Court
1.	Income	Rs. 4,500 x 70% = Rs. 3,150 x 12 = Rs. 37,800/-	Rs. 6,648/- x12 = Rs. 79,776/-
2.	Future Prospect	NIL	(40%) = Rs. 31,910/-
3.	Multiplier	(x) 18 = Rs. 6,80,400/-	(x) 18 = Rs. 20,10,355/-
4.	Loss of earning during course of treatment	Rs. 4,500 x 5 = Rs. 22,500/-	Rs. 6,648 x 5 = Rs. 33,240/-
5.	Attendant	Rs. 22,500/-	Rs. 22,500/-
6.	Special Diet	Rs. 24,000/-	Rs. 24,000/-
7.	Medical expenses	Rs. 250/-	Rs. 250/-
8.	Conveyance	Rs. 5,000/-	Rs. 5,000/-
9.	Pain and suffering	Rs. 1,00,000/-	Rs. 1,00,000/-
10.	Loss of amenities	NIL	Rs. 50,000/-
11.	Loss of marriage prospect	NIL	Rs. 1,00,000/-
	TOTAL	Rs. 8,54,650/-	Rs. 23,45,345/-

¶40

14. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 8,54,650/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 23,45,345 / - . Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 8,54,650 /-, the appellant/claimant is held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 14,90,695 /- with interest at the rate of 9%. The Insurance company is directed to indemnify the entire amount of compensation first within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, and thereafter, recover it from driver and owner of the offending vehicle. The appellant shall not be entitled to receive any interest for the period of

¶41

6

¶42

delay caused in filing this appeal . Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.

¶43

15. Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby partly allowed.

¶44

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶45

$iddhant

Kumari Chandrasheela @ Jayshree Sethiya v. Manoj Kumar Soni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumari Chandrasheela @ Jayshree Sethiya v. Manoj Kumar Soni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Bharti Sahu

Branch Manager, New India Insurance Company Limited Vs Leelavati

Jageshwari Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vishwanath Singh (Died through Lrs) Vs Laxmi Kunwar (Died) through Lrs

Smt. Hemlata Verma Vs Rameshwar Prasad Navrange

Bharat Purle Vs Kamal Prasad Patle